Nicole Cooke's retirement

[ufkacbln]

Note the word substantiated............. if her husband is convicted of supplying her with drugs than that would be substantiated evidence

 

[deptfordmarmoset]

Ok, put your unsubstantiated cock on the block, then.

 

[black'n'yellow]

Speaking as the bloke that started the Longo argument here.....for what it's worth, I think the balance of probability is that she was systematically doping for some years. But is it right to categorically call her a 'doper' today?? Technically, no. Which is why I reserve judgement on her, thus avoiding the 'lynch mob' mentality which seems popular here.

In that sense, I can see where cunobelin is coming from....probably...

 

[Crackle]

Speaking as the bloke that started the Longo argument here.....for what it's worth, I think the balance of probability is that she was systematically doping for some years. But is it right to categorically call her a 'doper' today?? Technically, no. Which is why I reserve judgement on her, thus avoiding the 'lynch mob' mentality which seems popular here.

In that sense, I can see where cunobelin is coming from....probably...

Popular here? Try The Clinic on Cyclingnews. We're positively liberals.

 

[black'n'yellow]

Popular here? Try The Clinic on Cyclingnews. We're positively liberals.

Future Publishing? - no thanks.

 

[Crackle]

Future Publishing? - no thanks.

Ah, you're a refugee from Future. That's how this forum took off.

 

[rich p]

Whereas what?

You have been challenged to prove your misinterpretation previously and predictably ran and hid behind the cover of an ignore list...... and failed to prove your lies.

As usual I don't understand what you're blathering about but not to worry.

 

[rich p]

Future Publishing? - no thanks.

Cyclingnews is Future Publishing?

 

[Crackle]

Cyclingnews is Future Publishing?

It is. Scroll to bottom of page.

 

[Crackle]

Not this page

 

[rich p]

Not this page

Well, I'm damned.

 

[ufkacbln]

As usual I don't understand what you're blathering about but not to worry.

Your usual avoidance?

It is really amazing how when you are asked to prove anything you feign being unable to understand

Rather sad really, but not unexpected....easier than actually facing up to reality?

 

[Flying_Monkey]

Your usual avoidance?

It is really amazing how when you are asked to prove anything you feign being unable to understand

Rather sad really, but not unexpected....easier than actually facing up to reality?

You are ridiculous. Do stop it.

And the only reason why Longo hasn't been subjected to a proper investigation a la Armstrong is that no-one is any position of influence in either the UCI or WADA gives a monkeys about women's cycling. The same generalized sexism that keeps women's cycling in a secondary position ironically also allows someone like Longo to get away with quite clearly implausible feats - because the men in charge really don't care.

 

[rich p]

Your usual avoidance?

It is really amazing how when you are asked to prove anything you feign being unable to understand

Rather sad really, but not unexpected....easier than actually facing up to reality?

Still obsessed with me and some historic posts! Flattering, as I said, but strangely worrying

 

[ufkacbln]

Simply a case of having standards.

Yours are evidently low